Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.
Category: People
What retired dentists get up to!
While dealing with children and their little models I can spend hours making and mending small plastic and wooden pieces to give them a few hours of fun and assist them in understanding what machinery is made up of.
Recently I saw a model of a galleon made by a prisoner of war. He would obviously have had many hours with which to spend his time, making a work of art, but now prepare to have your jaw dropped.
For a long time, it has seemed to me that we confuse crimes and accidents.
This is such a substantial issue that more posts might flow from this, depending on the level of interest. Also, I should point out that I am no lawyer, so this is a personal, not a professional, view.
When crimes are treated as accidents, criminal behaviour is appeased and no deterrent effect generated. Attempts to learn lessons are likely to be fruitless. So behaviour does not change and the crimes continue.
When accidents are treated as crimes, blame is allocated inappropriately and lessons are not learned. Innocent participants are punished for no purpose. So behaviour does not change and the accidents continue.
There are issues of causation, intent, blame and so on.
There are so many examples of this, that I am not sure where to begin. So, I won’t … yet!
What do you think?
By John Lewis
A small challenge to a Nobel prize winner in Economics!
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Paul Krugman continues his boundless quest to become the “it” guy in the world of economics. I have taken issue with his command of basic economic facts in the past — a gutsy, if not insane thing to do given the man was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics.
This post is more about ego than economics, however.
In this op-ed, Mr. Krugman says (and I kid you not),
…But after the debacle of the past two years, there’s broad agreement — I’m tempted to say, agreement on the part of almost everyone not on the financial industry’s payroll — with Mr. Turner’s assertion that a lot of what Wall Street and the City do is “socially useless.” And a transactions tax could generate substantial revenue, helping alleviate fears about government deficits. What’s not to like?
Well, I disagree with the idea that what Wall Street does is socially useless. And I am not on the financial industry’s payroll.
Nope, I’m just a simple economist, using my head, training, and experience to consider this idea, map out the pros and cons, and analyze the logical end-game of such a tax. I conclude that it is a really bad idea.
Why? There are lots of reasons, but I will mention only two.
His reasons? Other than citing one academic study (while ignoring the many others that reach a different conclusion), he gives no economic reasons for his views. Instead, he make claims. He claims, for example, that “socially damaging behavior … caused our current crisis.” He says that the financial services industry is “bloated” and needs to be cut down to size. He says that the new tax is okay because it raises revenues for the government which, he claims, should make us all feel better about the deficit and, apparently, the size and nature of government spending under Obama. And, the lamest of all, for no other reason than to hide behind their skirt, he claims the existence of some phantom majority, apparently to create the impression that anyone with a different view is clearly in the minority. A tactic that should be beneath a Noble Prize winner, but one that runs through his work with increasing frequency over time.
But, Mr. Krugman, I so disagree with you. And even in an op-ed piece — perhaps especially in an op-ed piece – I believe that one needs to reign in an ego that would parade claims as facts, especially when each of those claims is disputed by your fellow economists, none of whom stooped so low as to imply that you were paid for your views.
By Sherry Jarrell
Communicating effectively means being totally mentally connected.
I have been working with a client recently through a very tough performance improvement plan.
As part of the plan, my client had to be videoed working with people in his workplace. I had to observe the video and then give feedback on it.
He seemed very efficient and made notes whilst he worked with each person. Occasionally though, something didn’t seem to be quite right. When I watched more closely I realised what was wrong. He wasn’t present. He wasn’t really connecting with the people he was working with.
It made me reflect on how much more effective he would have been if he had been able to connect with these people? I wondered if he was even able to understood about being present and what that meant?
By Jon Lavin
Some chilling reminders of the reality of war!
Britain has a National Collection of Aerial Photography. It is held within the offices of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland – perfectly logical!
A summary of the different collections is listed here, many of them wartime photographs that bring a multitude of emotions to the surface: incredible bravery of the pilots; photographic standards of 70 years ago, man’s inhumanity to man; and so on.
I pondered a bit about writing this Post because, well ….. well…, see what you make of it!
Being born in England in the early part of November, 1944, World War 2 still resonates within me.
Early home in an industrial part of West London meant that my mother and father had a ring-side view of the German V1 and V2 rockets that were being visited on London at that time.
My mother, 90, still recounts her enormous sense of relief when VE Day was announced (May 8th, 1945) because she then thought that her son’s future life was more or less assured.
So back to these aerial photographs held in those collections.
Here’s a picture of the visitation of war on the beautiful French town of Caen.
Linger a while and look at the damage, mostly to private homes. The photograph was taken just slightly more than a month before I was born.
So where’s this Post leading to….?
An example of how we really do own our lives.
We were invited to our friend’s 25th Wedding Anniversary on Saturday, 21st November.
It was in a local pub and they had invited many friends, some of whom we had not seen for many years.
One friend had started his own architect business, built it up over the last 10 years and, although he had lost a large amount of work because of the recession, things seemed to be picking up.
I mentioned that my work had dropped off dramatically since the summer. He said:
Well, Jon. You can make your own mind up what you do. You can either decide you’re going to go bankrupt or you can decide that you’re going to succeed – in spite of everything.
For some reason, that short conversation had a huge impact on me and I realised that it really is mind over matter and once we make our mind up about something, good or bad, it tends to happen.
By Jon Lavin
Whether you live in the UK or not is an issue, because it might well affect somewhat your reaction to a recent diatribe which is characteristic of a journalist who is well known in the UK, but probably not outside. (That sentence was too long; I was trying to emulate his style!)
That journalist is Jeremy Clarkson, who is known as an arrogant, irresponsible motoring journalist.
Over the years, he has done only a moderately good job of using that persona to hide his intelligence, his common sense, his sentimentality and, even, his wit!
Fortunately, for the rest of us, his failures to hide them completely have been known to result in some valuable contributions; whether this is one of them, you will have to judge for yourself.
If you are live in the UK, or are from the UK and living elsewhere, you will probably “get” his recently written article in the Times Online. Here’s a flavour of the article:
He [Peter Mandelson] announced last week that middle-class children will simply not be allowed into the country’s top universities even if they have 4,000 A-levels, because all the places will be taken by Albanians and guillemots and whatever other stupid bandwagon the conniving idiot has leapt onto in the meantime.
I hate Peter Mandelson. I hate his fondness for extremely pale blue jeans and I hate that preposterous moustache he used to sport in the days when he didn’t bother trying to cover up his left-wing fanaticism. I hate the way he quite literally lords it over us even though he’s resigned in disgrace twice, and now holds an important decision-making job for which he was not elected. Mostly, though, I hate him because his one-man war on the bright and the witty and the successful means that half my friends now seem to be taking leave of their senses.
My guess is that you will either sympathise with it, or not; there is unlikely to be any middle position!
If you have no UK connections, then the whole thing might appear to be complete nonsense. In that case, you might be interested, at least, to know that more and more people in the UK feel like this!
My hand is up, “include me in”, as they say! … and my guess is that Chris Snuggs, of this blog, has both hands up!
By John Lewis
[P.S. more of Clarkson’s superb writing here. P.P.S. Mandelson background for non Brits. Ed.]
Another political masterpiece!
British Health Minister Andy Burnham is urging us to give up meat; this will apparently help to save the planet.
Now, it is very noble of the Minister to try to help save the planet. However, his efforts do raise some questions.
And at the same time as we are being sermonised about our meat-eating the the USA is edging towards the opening-up to oil-exploration of previously off-limit areas.
In our quaint British lingo this is known as “not singing from the same song-sheet”. And as for oil, I wish they would make up their minds once and for all; either we have to reduce its use or we don’t.
At the moment, all they seem to be doing is organising conferences (at vast carbon footprint) where they promise to reduce emissions. This is schizophrenia, isn’t it?
Re the British sermon, one wonders whether the noble minister is himself a vegetarian, and of course whether he is among the vast government contingent attending the international climate conference. And does he drive the car 50 metres to the baker’s on Sunday mornings?
Personally, I’d be prepared to give up meat if: A) I were convinced it would do any good and B) I thought that the great and good (and rich) would make a similar sacrifice.
These are two VERY big “ifs” ………
Must go – got some burgers in the pan …..
By Chris Snuggs
Pay and the Free Market
It came up again in conversation today: someone was offended and upset over the level of compensation of some senior executives in the U.S. economy. I have to admit I just do not understand the anger. And I have a fundamental lack of respect for the arguments that have been served up thus far in support of the position.
I have tried to resist drawing the conclusion that the anger is born of envy, but I am very close to throwing in the towel on that one. Why should we begrudge anyone who earns a healthy salary, especially in an economy that provides each of us the opportunity to aspire to the same?
Even if there were reasonable ways around the practical issues and costs associated with legislative caps on salaries — how to set them, who sets them, using what measures, what value judgements — it simply makes no sense. It is the antithesis of a competitive market economy where individuals have the incentive to learn, grow, work hard, and succeed. It ignores the role played by capitalism in creating a strong and vibrant private economy that provides endless opportunities for all who want to put in the hours and the effort to succeed.
U.S. corporate governance rules provide the framework for determining the compensation for senior executives, and it works remarkably well. Each shareholder, or owner of the company, gets one vote on material issues such as reorganization. The Board of Directors is responsible for hiring and firing senior management on behalf of the shareholders. If the shareholders do not like the decisions of the board, including those that set the level and form of compensation for senior management, they have at least two, very effective choices. They can either sell their shares in the company or they can vote to replace the board members. The board can take several steps if, after negotiating the compensation package for senior management, the executive fails to perform. The board can withhold the bonus, renegotiate the terms of the contract, or fire the executive. Then the long, mostly objective arm of the competitive labor market will determine the market-clearing value for the skills and experience of the recently fired executive.
One thing I’ve never quite understood is why the market doesn’t seem to exact more punishment on senior executives who run their companies into the ground. Maybe there is an old boys network that looks out for ex-executives; maybe my observations are biased; maybe I notice only those cases where failed executives rise again. But it’s an empirical question, in any case; we can gather data on the issue and study it objectively.
Regardless of the conclusions of such an analysis, however, decisions about executive compensation must remain in the labor market where your ability to produce economic value still reigns supreme over your ability to curry votes and political favor.
By Sherry Jarrell
To lead the project which took an old clay pit in a remote corner of the UK and converted it into a world class environmental visitor attraction is a tremendous achievement.
Tim Smit had some fun with the business community at the 2009 Annual Convention of the UK Institute of Directors. Everyone, including he, was in their best business attire, but very few people could get away with crumpled shirt and jeans!
However, he has a serious message about the environment (1:55) and he knows a thing or two about people as well!
For fun, and on an Australian tack, Eric Idle is not so sure.
By John Lewis
Learning from Dogs 